End of two seater fighters?

[StoleIt]

Well I am pretty slow and it just dawned on me...

The F-22 definitly doesn't have a two seat trainer version...but operantly neither does the F-35.

So in a couple decades when Vipers and Eagles have been retired...no more two seaters eh? Does the AF plan on stepping up some of the -38 training (or whatever its replacement might be)? Or does it expect simulators will be so realistic by then that all a stud needs is to pass -38's and then sims?

Before this I think the Hog was one of the few jets that didn't have a two seat version for training. F-16D, F-15D, F-18D/F, TAV-8B. These are just the more modern ones...

Thoughts?

[FallingOsh]

Well I am pretty slow and it just dawned on me...

The F-22 definitly doesn't have a two seat trainer version...but operantly neither does the F-35.

So in a couple decades when Vipers and Eagles have been retired...no more two seaters eh? Does the AF plan on stepping up some of the -38 training (or whatever its replacement might be)? Or does it expect simulators will be so realistic by then that all a stud needs is to pass -38's and then sims?

Before this I think the Hog was one of the few jets that didn't have a two seat version for training. F-16D, F-15D, F-18D/F, TAV-8B. These are just the more modern ones...

Thoughts?

Not sure what you mean by stepping up -38 training. Do you suggest a longer IFF program? Sims are already very realistic. Like you said, the Hog has been doing that sort of training from the beginning. I think the brass is more concerned about a new stud G-LOCing in a 137 trillion dollar jet. No sim in the world can prepare you for 9G fights. The new tactics are also a concern, but I'm sure any discussion of those would quickly be deleted. Not that I have any detailed knowledge whatsoever, anyway.

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

After the Viper and Eagle, they will have "washed" all of those pilots to the U-28, RC-12, and UAS platforms. Things are going down on both sides of the road real quick...

[MD]

Before this I think the Hog was one of the few jets that didn't have a two seat version for training. F-16D, F-15D, F-18D/F, TAV-8B. These are just the more modern ones...

Thoughts?

Neither did the 117.

[Guest Cap-10]

Before this I think the Hog was one of the few jets that didn't have a two seat version for training...

From TankKiller.com

Cap-10

[MD]

Figured he meant apart from the two B-model N/AW Hogs....lol

[StoleIt]

From TankKiller.com

Cap-10

Yea I know those two Hawgs exist, but my point was more toward actually produced versions for training.

Neither did the 117.

True. But I guess the -22 and -35 are different animals? Any stealth pilots here? Wonder how it was transitioning from -38's to -117's.

[MD]

Everyone that went to the -117 came from a fighter. You couldn't get one straight out of UPT.

Almost. We had one prior U-2 / KC-10 guy, and a couple of B-1 background guys. But the above is true for the balance.

[FalconXtreme]

I think the brass is more concerned about a new stud G-LOCing in a 137 trillion dollar jet. No sim in the world can prepare you for 9G fights.

i remember i had talked to an eagle pilot that was moving to the -22 and he said that there were some avionics systems that prevented u from doing instant 9g turns and it had to be done gradually. is there any truth to that? maybe that could be a way to help decrease the chances of a new stud g-locing the aircraft.

[M2]

Figured he meant apart from the two B-model N/AW Hogs....lol

Contrary to popular myth, there was only one A-10B made (<-- click on link for the Fairchild promotional video for the N/AW), tail number 73-1664, built from the first of six A-10 DT&E aircraft...

Cheers! M2

[brabus]

that prevented u from doing instant 9g turns and it had to be done gradually

Define instant. There's obviously a max g-onset rate, but my pure guess is that it's close enough to "instant" to not matter from a pilot's perspective.

[FallingOsh]

i remember i had talked to an eagle pilot that was moving to the -22 and he said that there were some avionics systems that prevented u from doing instant 9g turns and it had to be done gradually. is there any truth to that? maybe that could be a way to help decrease the chances of a new stud g-locing the aircraft.

Along with what BRab said:

Instand G's typically don't G-LOC you. A sustained G turn does. A -22 driver told us he terminated a 9ish G rate fight after 30 seconds cause he got tired, not cause the jet couldn't do it. Just thinking about that makes me grey out a little.

[HuggyU2]

Almost. We had one prior U-2 / KC-10 guy,...

Actually, you had 5 U-2 guys between 1999-2004

[brabus]

Just thinking about that makes me grey out a little.

Don't bullshit us Osh! You know it makes you gray out a shitload! All I can say is, ouch.

[zrooster99]

Instand G's typically don't G-LOC you. A sustained G turn does.

Not that this comes up much (or at all) in the -17, but I thought rate of onset WAS significant.

[Guest Cap-10]

Along with what BRab said:

Instand G's typically don't G-LOC you. A sustained G turn does. A -22 driver told us he terminated a 9ish G rate fight after 30 seconds cause he got tired, not cause the jet couldn't do it. Just thinking about that makes me grey out a little.

Not quite.

1) I seem to remember during my T-37 days that all the IP's talked about the tweet having the hightest G-LOC rate of any aircraft in the inventory. (This could obviously be becuase of the lack of g-suit and the fact newbies are learning to fly it). They also said the tweet had the hightest G-onset rate, but couldn't sustain it.

2) I know the raptor is a different animal, but 9 g's and rate fight are two words that don't really go together. You would normally pull higher g-loads during a nose position fight (i.e. you are pulling more G to cash in airspeed for nose position, to point at the enemy to shoot something). A rate fight, where you are trying to win the degree's per second fight (use the geometry of your superior turn rate to eventually point at the bandit) is normally accomplished at a lower sustained G.

3). I've never flown a raptor....with their thrust vectoring, they may very well get their best rate at 9 g's. I don't know.

Cap-10

[Guest Bender]

Om-set rate is only a factor if you aren't prepared properly ahead of time. It's possible to catch up, but at the max onset, it might as well be instant regardless of what it is.

It is clearly, IMO, the reason for the high G-LOC numbers in the tweet. It will let you do it, and those that are unprepared don't catch up quck enough.

The maneuver to check your tolerance is much more important then UPT instructor make it. You should get downgraded for not making it smothly incremented, again IMO.

As for this topic...seriously? There has been talk for years and some action (more happening now) that 130 guys won't ever land the plane in anything other than the sim and be qualified.

I know there is alot more airborne that goes into flying a fighter, but if you'd qual someone to land a C-130 in the sim. (I've flown the T-38 sim and it's WAY better then what we get in the 130..) I think we could live without 2 seat trainers.

I don't know. I think it's a great question and when the time does come that UPT studs are moving to the plane it'll be an issue at first, but they'll be fine.

Flying is flying. Making a single seat guy tinto a crew AC isn't a ig deal and transitioning to an F-X from a T-38 isn't a big deal if you understand the plane.

It may take longer for newbies to be good at employing it....which will hurt effectiveness wise, but the capibilities of both of these aircraft you speak of more than make up for that.

I like the question, I just don't think it's that big of a deal.

BENDY

[WheelzUp]

I like the question, I just don't think it's that big of a deal.

Your rate vs. radius comments are valid, no doubt. The traditional rate fight occurs at a lower G level than the initial nose position maneuver, however, IMO the issue is that the F-22 has the ability to sustain 9G's for a significant period of time, even in a rate sort of turn. I'm no raptor driver, and we would need one here to confirm that. The fact is though, that if we don't have a two seat F-22, the young guys who go to fly it will not have alot of experience with high G flight unless they are first exposed to it via some other fighter. ie: F-16D or F-15D. This is currently the way things are being done, but those jets won't be around forever. The T-38 simply cannot prepare a pilot for that kind of physical stress, and until we replace it with something more modern, this shortcoming will continue to be a problem. And allowing an LT to fly the F-22 alone for the first time, potentially to go out and pull 9+ G's is risky buisness. Interesting times we are living in for sure!

Wheelz

[MD]

Actually, you had 5 U-2 guys between 1999-2004

Should have caveated "during my time there, we had....."

[USMCAirWinger]

Most G-Locks happen within the first 5 seconds.

[Buddy Spike]

Om-set rate is only a factor if you aren't prepared properly ahead of time. It's possible to catch up, but at the max onset, it might as well be instant regardless of what it is.

It is clearly, IMO, the reason for the high G-LOC numbers in the tweet. It will let you do it, and those that are unprepared don't catch up quck enough.

The maneuver to check your tolerance is much more important then UPT instructor make it. You should get downgraded for not making it smothly incremented, again IMO.

As for this topic...seriously? There has been talk for years and some action (more happening now) that 130 guys won't ever land the plane in anything other than the sim and be qualified.

I know there is alot more airborne that goes into flying a fighter, but if you'd qual someone to land a C-130 in the sim. (I've flown the T-38 sim and it's WAY better then what we get in the 130..) I think we could live without 2 seat trainers.

I don't know. I think it's a great question and when the time does come that UPT studs are moving to the plane it'll be an issue at first, but they'll be fine.

Flying is flying. Making a single seat guy tinto a crew AC isn't a ig deal and transitioning to an F-X from a T-38 isn't a big deal if you understand the plane.

It may take longer for newbies to be good at employing it....which will hurt effectiveness wise, but the capibilities of both of these aircraft you speak of more than make up for that.

I like the question, I just don't think it's that big of a deal.

BENDY

There's a lot more to flying a fighter than landing. Sure you can teach a new guy to land the thing in the sim (because that's not the mission), but you can't give a guy his upgrade in the sim and then go "here, go pull 9Gs and employ this thing, tell us how it goes."

[busdriver]

I think what Bender was getting at is that flying a modern aircraft is pretty easy. It's the tactical employment that's hard.

[Guest Bender]

Sure, but isn't that what the dedicated fuge profiles are for? That is also a "sim." It's not ideal, but I think it's quite possible. Maybe the in between step in another aircraft at IFF...honestly, it's not my problem, so I'm over it.

BENDY